Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 3

Beating revisionism means continuously fighting opportunism
The analyse that Ludo Martens wrote about the developments of revisionism in the USSR, was the main text, that was to be discussed, to be amended and to be voted on the Fourth Congress of the WPB in 1992.
The original point of view that existed in the party about Kroutchov, the period of Breznjev, the coming of Gorbatjov, the fall of socialism in the USSR and the very superficial analyses that a lot of cadres made, were the main reasons for Ludo Martens, as leading president of the WPB, to make that analyse and to insist of having a Congress of the WPB, with this analyse as main document. The result of that fourth congress was the book « USSR, velvet contra revolution »
After the fourth Congress, Ludo Martens noted no significant progress in the revolutionary spirit of a lot of cadres. At the same time, and allowed by the party, he was spending a lot of time and energy with his political and ideological help to the possible revolution in the former Belgian colony, Congo.
Beside himself there were no very much cadres who had the political and ideological capacities to lead the party in at least a collective leadership. Instead of that there were some cadres who capitulated.
Therefore one can say without exaggeration say that Ludo Martens was the most important force to organise the Fifth Congress of the WPB in 1995.
Beside himself, different cadres had to write a project text, or a project resolution that would be proposed to, discussed on, amended and voted on that congress.
After that congress, out of all the voted congress documents, a book was edited and published: « Party of the Revolution ». (you can read here in a regularly updated file the progress of a translation in English of at least the most significant parts.

I was delegate on that Congress and I had to study on some texts (there were different workgroups round different proposed texts) the most important amendments on a specific text was made in the workgroup round that text. But all texts could be studied by all the delegates. And every delegate could make an amendment of every text. The amendments were grouped and than in the plenum, every text with his amendments was voted. And always someone could defend the amendment and someone could attack the same amendment.
But because the existing lack of good knowledge of Marxism, the existing of important forms of political and ideological opportunism (that were in fact the REASONS to ORGANISE that congress!)still present on the congress itself, those forms of opportunism were not totally beaten in the congress documents themselves. Therefore you can notice in the book « Party of the revolution » the development of a revolutionary line, some opportunism included IN that revolutionary line, some opportunist chapters and even development of a revisionist line.
You can discover point of views in that same book that in fact CONTRADICT each other….
I have to make my own self critic that I studied Marxism in a dogmatic way on that moment, so I could not notice not on the moment of the Fifth Congress itself, these contradictions.
Now, in 2008, I have tot conclude that apparently there was, and is a strong form of opportunist way of use of Marxism by the majority of the militants of the WPB. That is only reason that I can think of that comrades that become once member of the WPB because they discovered Marxism as analysing method to develop a strategy to revolution and the installing of socialism and because they want to become part of the working class to organise the vanguard to lead the working class to revolution…. but developed an opportunist (dogmatic) form of Marxism and so they were not aware of the development of revisionism in the party, becoming the leading line in 2004. In fact the same comrades agreed on the 8^th Congress that the WPB became a reformist party, with a reformist line. That same reformist line where those same comrades always fought against in the early years of the WPB! You can read here some reactions of comrades that I knew in the party and that knew me as well. I will discuss those reactions while analyzing “Party of the Revolution”.
Here you can read the chronology of the analyse of the development of revisionism that I already wrote (in English, because in Dutch I wrote already more).
In the next article I will begin with the analyse of “Party of the revolution”.

Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 2

The analyse that Ludo Martens wrote about the developments of revisionism in the USSR, was the main text, that was to be discussed, to be amended and to be voted on the Fourth Congress of the WPB in 1992.
The original point of view that existed in the party about Kroutchov, the period of Breznjev, the coming of Gorbatjov, the fall of socialism in the USSR and the very superficial analyses that a lot of cadres made, were the main reasons for Ludo Martens, as leading president of the WPB, to make that analyse and to insist of having a Congress of the WPB, with this analyse as main document. The result of that fourth congress was the book « USSR, velvet contra revolution »
After the fourth Congress, Ludo Martens noted no significant progress in the revolutionary spirit of a lot of cadres. At the same time, and allowed by the party, he was spending a lot of time and energy with his political and ideological help to the possible revolution in the former Belgian colony, Congo.
Beside himself there were no very much cadres who had the political and ideological capacities to lead the party in at least a collective leadership. Instead of that there were some cadres who capitulated.
Therefore one can say without exaggeration say that Ludo Martens was the most important force to organise the Fifth Congress of the WPB in 1995.
Beside himself, different cadres had to write a project text, or a project resolution that would be proposed to, discussed on, amended and voted on that congress.
After that congress, out of all the voted congress documents, a book was edited and published: « Party of the Revolution ». (you can read here in a regularly updated file the progress of a translation in English of at least the most significant parts

I was delegate on that Congress and I had to study on some texts (there were different workgroups round different proposed texts) the most important amendments on a specific text was made in the workgroup round that text. But all texts could be studied by all the delegates. And every delegate could make an amendment of every text. The amendments were grouped and than in the plenum, every text with his amendments was voted. And always someone could defend the amendment and someone could attack the same amendment.
But because the existing lack of good knowledge of Marxism, the existing of important forms of political and ideological opportunism (that were in fact the REASONS to ORGANISE that congress!)still present on the congress itself, those forms of opportunism were not totally beaten in the congress documents themselves. Therefore you can notice in the book « Party of the revolution » the development of a revolutionary line, some opportunism included IN that revolutionary line, some opportunist chapters and even development of a revisionist line.
You can discover point of views in that same book that in fact CONTRADICT each other….
I have to make my own self critic that I studied Marxism in a dogmatic way on that moment, so I could not notice not on the moment of the Fifth Congress itself, these contradictions.
Now, in 2008, I have tot conclude that apparently there was, and is a strong form of opportunist way of use of Marxism by the majority of the militants of the WPB. That is only reason that I can think of that comrades that become once member of the WPB because they discovered Marxism as analysing method to develop a strategy to revolution and the installing of socialism and because they want to become part of the working class to organise the vanguard to lead the working class to revolution…. but developed an opportunist (dogmatic) form of Marxism and so they were not aware of the development of revisionism in the party, becoming the leading line in 2004. In fact the same comrades agreed on the 8^th Congress that the WPB became a reformist party, with a reformist line. That same reformist line where those same comrades always fought against in the early years of the WPB! You can read here some reactions of comrades that I knew in the party and that knew me as well. I will discuss those reactions while analyzing “Party of the Revolution”.
In the next article (when it is finished) I will begin with the analyse of “Party of the revolution”

Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism

I started my analysis, in English, about revisionism here with « Revisionism, the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (1) ». The title of that series of articles was inspired by the following quote of Ludo Martens, effective leading the Workers Party of Belgium until 1995:"After socialism is been destroyed in the Soviet union en the explosion of the country of Lenin, all communists has to understand that revisionism is the most dangerous ideological enemy of Marxism-Leninism. It’s beyond any doubt that revisionism represents the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement^[1]"

It is my opinion that I can prove that there is a development of revisionism in the international communist movement. That development of revisionism is based on and is using certain existing opportunist conceptions (in different communist parties). In some parties the revisionist line has become the main line in that party. At this moment this is the case of the once revolutionary Workers Party of Belgium. This was possible because the leading cadres succeeded (through different mechanisms, I will discus in later articles) in putting in the mind of the majority of the members, a conception of "Marxism" or "scientific socialism" which is in fact metaphysics and idealism formulated in "Marxist phraseology". That kind of leading cadres, perhaps once entered the party on revolutionary conceptions, on a certain moment positioned themselves on bourgeois class-point of view. Those cadres could mask their conceptions with Marxist phraseology easily, because they had often an encyclopaedic knowledge of publications, articles and books of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong.
I analysed of what I named revisionist conceptions, in a text produced by a cadre of the WPB, Peter Franssen.^[2]

I conclude that first series of articles (« Revisionism, the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (1- 7)- you can click from one article to the other) with some general working-methods of revisionism.
There is an IDEA, a CONCEPTION, and a POLICY that has to be to «proven» with a «Marxist» analysis that it is a historical fact, a consequent Marxist conception or a socialism stimulating policy. Those IDEAS, CONCEPTION, or POLICY are IN FACT anti-revolutionary, protecting the existence of capitalism and a policy of dismantling al the results of socialism. To give those ideas, conceptions or policies a « Marxist » apology, quotes of Marx, Engels, Lenin and also of Stalin and Mao Zedong are founded where they SEEMS to says exactly what the revisionists propose. General conclusions of Marx and others are for them concrete and specific proves of the correctness of the policy in a specific situation, totally different of the situation where the GENERAL conclusion is been made. Or a specific policy, to solve specific problems in a specific situation is « proven » to be exactly the same as the in fact antirevolutionary and capitalism protecting policy of the revisionist leaders. Therefore they use also the anti-Marxist conception of exact analogue situations in historical progress. The goal is to mislead party members and condemn, with chosen quotes of Marx and others each policy, each initiative of other party-cadres with still revolutionary ambitions to take steps towards revolution, or to strengthen to power of the working class, or to take steps to further building socialist plan economy and to diminish the still existing influence of capitalist commodity-production as « left », « sectarian » or « utopian socialism ».
To convince other party members, the revisionists made use of existing weakness of knowledge of Marxism, and existing forms of opportunism as dogmatism, empirism. They promote among the militants a spirit of militant ACTIVISM, which results in political suivism.

I will prove this with concrete analysis of the developments in the Workers Party of Belgium. In fact I began with this in a second series of articles, « About revisionism » (with the first one beginning here). I said that I want to make my analysis of the development of revisionism based on the concrete example of the Workers Party of Belgium in such a way that communists not member of the WPB but member of communist parties of other regions in the world can make their own opinion about my analysis.
That is the reason that I began with the revisionism in the analysis that cadres of the WPB made of the socialism in China. That is a subject where about each communist or communist organization can get information and mostly have their own analysis.
I started then with an analysis of a text (that you can read here, in french) that Boudewijn Deckers wrote. (You can read this beginning with this article) Boudewijn Deckers was after Ludo Martens the highest cadre in the WPB and before that in AMADA (Alle Macht Aan De Arbeiders -All Power to the Workers)

I see Ludo Martens as the protagonist of the revolutionary and real Marxist line in the WPB.

For me, Boudewijn Decker has become the protagonist of the revisionist line that developed inside the WPB.

On this very moment, in 2008, I say that by the work of the revisionist fraction (mostly leading cadres of the WPB) the WPB has become a REFORMIST party, a party that is working in the bourgeoisie legality and with a reformist program. It has been possible because of the lack of vigilance of the majority of the members. (I will indicate why and how later) Another example is the Socialist Party (SP) of the Netherlands, once the Communist Unity Movement (KEN-ML).The difference between the WPB and the SP is that the WPB, but only formal (and to position herself electoral between other « left » parties in Belgium) still claim that she based herself on Marxism and that her ultimate goal (somewhere in a far future) is socialism as a step to communism. You can follow in that series my comment on Boudewijn Deckers’ « Marxist » analyze of the socialism in China.

But for the good understanding of my analysis, I gave then (starting here) an example of how revisionism works and how revisionists ABUSE Marxism or the scientific socialism and spread IDEALISM and METAPHISICS under Marxist phraseology.
I used therefore the text of the Chinese economists of the CCP, I spoke about in my email (read here) to Boudewijn Deckers, leading cadre of the WPB. The text itself you can read here. To give (only) an example of the manner of arguing of revisionists I give some quotes out of this text.

I interrupted then my analysis of the development of revisionism using the example of Boudewijn Deckers, leading cadre of the WPB. Although it is a concrete example, it is an example in the perhaps rather unknown (and most of all of his INTERN contradictions) little communist party of a little country; I began than (starting here) to analyze the development of revisionism in the CCP with the concrete example of Deng Xiaoping. Because every-one can then better judge if my analyze is correct or not, because everyone can find al information and historical facts about the CCP and Deng Xiaoping.
My meaning is that People or organisations, who now defend socialism in China (against the political and ideological attacks out of the imperialist world) but not making an analysis from and not fighting (political and ideological) against the revisionism in the CPC, are, as I see it, no Marxists, communists or revolutionaries (nor as individual nor as organisation).
Individuals or organisation like that, are by THEMSELVES contaminated by revisionism.
This MUST have repercussions on their OWN political, ideological and organisational work in their OWN region, where someday they will have to mobilise and lead the working masses to revolution.

Sympathisers with the socialist peoples republic of China can perhaps give positive facts that prove that China is STILL socialist, which is the reason that China deserves solidarity but also lie under the attack of pro-capitalist forces in the world. They try to give OTHER information. This is a good and necessary thing to do.
But I am fighting those who defend the authentically Marxist character of the economical policy actual in China and are claiming that socialism has been strengthened since 1978. Particularly when they are cadre in a, or representing a communist organisation. They are, I think; from the same calibre as Kautsky opposed by Lenin and named by him as « renegade ».
I will prove all this, being in fact the main goal of my analysis of the actual revisionism.
I want to prove now (being the next step in my analysis from the ACTUAL revisionism in the international communist movement) that the line of the CPC since 1978 is the OPPOSITE of the line of that same CPC before the dead of Mao Zedong.
All what the CPC was fighting against (with indeed a big contribution of Mao Zedong but ALSO what concerned the conceptions of Deng Xiaoping which he defended AT THAT TIME) is after 1978 becoming a part of the political line of the CPC!
Summarizing (and that is indeed simplifying) I think that you can say that de line of the CPC since 1978 is going back to the revisionist line that Liu ChaochI (in the years ‘50s) defended, in OPPOSITION with the line of Mao Zedong. You can see the official line of the CPC as the result of the struggle between two lines (the revolutionary line and the bourgeois/revisionist line), and therefore is reflecting a temporary outcome of that struggle.
(You can click here to the chronology of my articles analysing revisionism)

But now I interrupt (temporarily) also the analysis of the texts of Deng Xiaoping. I want first work on reactions I got from some militants of the WPB, militants that I knew and that I worked with. They are convicted communists, but at the same time they differ with me about the actual character of the WPB. For them the actual political, ideological and organizational line of the WPB is still revolutionary. For them the line from the 8^th congress in 2008 conforms to the line on the 5^th congress in 1995. (You can here read an overview of the reactions of those comrades of earlier days)
I had also a little discussion about revolutionary line for a communist party with a member of Free Road Socialist Organization (USA). (You can read about my reaction on an article on his weblog and his answers on my reactions here on his own weblog)

To be able to discuss with those comrades about if there is or not a real problem of opportunism (and I think there is, at least by those comrades still member of and active in the WPB, and I think that those comrades are not aware of that opportunism themselves) and to be able to discuss if in that opportunism (when it is not beaten)lies the danger of emerging revisionism (and the WPB of Belgium and the SP of the Netherlands are for me « negative teachers »of that), I will now first analyze the congress documents of the 5^th congress of the WPB (in 1995).

I am now translating in English (in which I am not expert) the book « Party of the Revolution » (you can read here the regularly updated file, as my translation progress, of that book here) which is an elaboration of the texts proposed, amended and then voted on the 5^th Congress of the WPB in 1995 (Workers Party of Labor, Partij Van De Arbeid van België (in Dutch) or Parti du Travail de Belgium (in French). It was a congress in which I participate as a delegate. This book proves -as I see it now, but I didn’t saw or noticed it then - that a revisionist line developed NEXT TO a revolutionary line in the WPB from that moment (in 1995). They were not in struggle because the revolutionary line itself was not free of opportunism. The knowledge of using scientific socialism as method of analyze was weak. There existed by a lot of members (by me also at that moment!) a dogmatic conception of Marxism (or scientific socialism) and so without weapons to discover the core of revisionism in the WPB. The revisionists were cadres that were respected in the party because they were authorities in the domain of Marxist analyze and because they were a part of the group that started AMADA, the communist organization out of which the WPB was founded. They used consciously this kind of « Marxism » to give their revisionist line credibility in the WPB. Ludo Martens, in fact FORMALLY president of the WPB until February 2008, where on the 8^th Congress Peter Mertens (being part of the revisionist fraction) was elected, was after the 5^th Congress, no longer leading the WPB. Although he wrote a lot about the danger of revisionism and even a sort of self critic about earlier dogmatism («Maoism») that the WPB developed, his writings had no more the authority of « official party document that each member had to study, to discuss in his base group and to assimilate ».
I think that the documents of the 5^th congress of the WPB contain lessons and warnings for other communist organizations how that a revisionist line can emerge, can develop and can become the leading line, transforming a revolutionary party into a reformist party. It’s analyze you can start reading here.
I will afterwards continue all analysis that I interrupted.

---

^[1] "About certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism", Ludo Martens in Marxistische Studies no 29, march 1996, (see www.marx.be), a discussion report on the International Seminar in Janashakti, India organised by the PCI(ML)

^[2] That text that is been put on the website of the Workers Party of Belgium, http://www.wpb.be/, on thursday, 17 November 2005, 12h40, "Contribution to the International Symposium held in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China, 13 - 15 October - Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China". (you can read this text here)

Reaction by militants of WPB on my articles

I got some reactions of militants of the WPB (they are still member, while I am expelled in 2005). They react on the analyse I made, of what I see as conscious developed revisionism in the actual WPB, turning the party from a revolutionary party into a reformist party. Those militants are convicted communists and believe still that they are member of, and working for, a true communist party. Therefore they differ with me, as you can see in their reactions. (The names are not their real names)
In the analyse that I will make, of the documents of the 5^th Congress of the WPB in 1995, I will use and discuss these reactions,

« Ron » emailed (in 2008 in reaction of my critics on the 8^th congress of the WPB):
« Dear,
As communist you have to know that theory and practice go hand in hand. I am confronted with this fact in my daily political work: How you can bring communism in the year 2008 in the minds of the workers? As a party we are learning this already many years how to do this, and this with ups and downs. I think we have made progress the last years: « more flexible to the outside, more Marxist Leninist inside ». We have gained some authority on that point. But it stays difficult. We can use everybody who wants to break his brains on this.
You are criticising the party and are arguing that she is no more communist, basing yourself on quotes out of popular brochures and out of Solidair. But than I ask myself, based on which practice are you doing this?
How much workers or even intellectuals you have been able to organise, since you have been fired, on the base of your conceptions how a communist party should work?
As far as I know, as far as I can see basing myself on your mails, you are nowhere on the point of practice (…)
I am certain that you can have a conversation with someone of the party that is best placed for that. I am hoping that you will take your place again IN THE PARTY again, so you can involve yourself in THE PRACTICE of the constructing of a (real) communist party, with all the fundamental discussions coming forth out of it.
I can very well answer your remarks in your mail, but will not do this here (…) I shall not comment your text (…) because I give priority to my own communist work.

Greetings. »

« Roger » emailed (also in 2008):
Dear comrade,
I should, if I were you, (…) really study the texts of the 8^th Congress.

The essential fact is: the WPB has to become a broad, popular workers party were the workers are feeling home. I was already member in the seventies, but this is still not the case. Far from it.
This is forcing us to question ourselves. Someone who live to see Marxism Leninism as a religion crying out loud al day: « Revolution, revolution » following the very correct conceptions of « Party of the Revolution » (and that book is absolutely still our base and the author of it lays on the base of the actual renewal with his critic on the period « Resist ») but can not organise people in a popular workers party is not using -as I see it - Marxism Leninism in a correct way.

When it is possible at the other hand with the « kiwi-model » - how reformist this model is itself - I think this is more Marxism Leninism. Lenin was not against reformist demands. The question is what you are doing with them, where do you want to go with them. You can attract with it the vanguard of the workers movement, organise them in the party and to educate them in Marxism Leninism. Just with a sufficient strong Marxist Leninist organisation you can develop the class struggle in the right direction. Two years now we have studied mainly « the left wing…. » to strengthen our ties with the masses (against leftism in the party)

To the inside we stay as earlier, Marxist Leninist and revolutionary. In the formation we still study the same works, also « Party of the Revolution ». But we adapt our tactic to become a broader workers party. We begin no more discussions about communism with workers who are not interested in it at the moment and are leaving us therefore.
We have to avoid this last thing. We are not able to counter all the influence of anticommunism on the masses to confront this directly and frontally. This way is not building a broad workers party, by chasing so many workers away. (There for the leaving of the hammer and sickle in the party logo. These are tactical questions, not touching the main objective of the party). Only with a long detour we can win the broad masses for our politic of the revolution. The communists have to experience this as positive in their struggle for a better live.
Only this way we can put communism on the map again for the broad masses. We have to create bounds with the workers as much as possible by struggling for their reformist demands and for solutions for their little and big problems. There is no other way. The way of working in Zelzate is a good example.

There were on the Congress long and broad discussions, for example about the quote « to embrace the unions ». This would be a difficult thing for you, I presume. And also your points of views - as far I can presume - were matter for discussion. But they were refuted at the end by the larger majority. We will never sleep in the same bed with Cortebeeck or De Leeuw, but without the working of revolutionaries in the unions and with certain compromises with the formers, we can never bring the masses to revolution.
You should not judge us so quickly. Really not. The renewal is asking for a serious attentive study before making a correct judgment. You are not thinking that we all are so naïve letting to be led by our nose by a leadership of traitors of Marxism Leninism. Marxism Leninism has as ideology dialectical materialism. So there is needed a lot of dialectics and a lot of materialism. It is a method of thinking. These are not revolutionary slogans that are staying forever the same in all circumstances. Where are we now with Marxism Leninism after 40 years in the world? As good as nowhere. There has to be still al lot of analysing and of thinking. I am certain that our 8^th Congress has done this really. We are really convicted that the SP in the Netherlands and Die Linke in Germany are opportunist, you know. We are not going on that way, how much however we can learn from them.

Comradely greetings. »

Out of another email of Ron (in 2007 as a reaction of an analyse (« Antimertens ») of a book of Peter Mertens on my web log. (Peter Mertens becoming president of the WPB in 2008):

« You are busy with pure book- « wisdom ». You lock yourself down behind your computer and are considering yourself as the new Lenin with your « Anti-Mertens ». But you are no Lenin, far from it. You can not even compare yourself in any way with your big example Ludo Martens. And why? You have not any bound with practice. The WPB is trying to build a communist party in the practice in an imperialist country of the 21st century and in the context of a world situation as she is today. You are claiming that she is no more revolutionary and maybe you have arguments for it. But what are worth those arguments if they are not tested in the practice? Nothing, zero, absolutely zero…. You have the pretension that a party with 3.000 members who have all their practice, has to listen to your lonely person behind your computer. Now you can read some quotes - also from you dear Ludo Martens - to freshen up for you the unbreakable bound between Theory and Practice.
So when you really mean it well and you are really concerned about the future of the WPB, stop with that « book wisdom » and take practice as base for your theory. Try to build yourself to build in the practice a revolutionary group of workers.
Out of « the Manifest, 150 year young in a history that counts in centuries » by Ludo Martens:
« Marx was a person, just like Engels, for whom practice is closely tied with the revolutionary theory. Two months after ending the editing of the Manifest, in Paris breaks out the Februarirevolution of 1848. Also in Brussels the revolutionary and republican environments are planning an insurrection for the construction of the republic. Marx is not staying at the sidelines. When we can believe a report of the police of Brussels, Marx had just received the sum of 6.000 francs as a heritage of his father. Marx, who shall live almost his whole life in poverty, is not doubting one moment to spend 5.000 francs of it for the buying of weapons mend for the workers of Brussels. »
Out of “Foundations of Leninism” (April 1924) Out: Source: Works Volume 6, pages 71-196. , “II. Method”^[1]:

« This is why Lenin said that "revolutionary theory is not a dogma," that it "assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement" ("Left-Wing" Communism^[2]); for theory must serve practice, for "theory must answer the questions raised by practice" (What the "Friends of the People" Are^[3]), for it must be tested by practical results. »

Out of t: Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung: ON PRACTICE, “On the Relation Between Knowledge and Practice, Between Knowing and Doing”^[4]:
Marxists hold that man's social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world. What actually happens is that man's knowledge is verified only when he achieves the anticipated results in the process of social practice (material production, class struggle or scientific experiment). If a man wants to succeed in his work, that is, to achieve the anticipated results, he must bring his ideas into correspondence with the laws of the objective external world; if they do not correspond, he will fail in his practice. After he fails, he draws his lessons, corrects his ideas to make them correspond to the laws of the external world, and can thus turn failure into success; this is what is meant by "failure is the mother of success" and "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit". The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all the erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice. Thus Lenin said, "Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality."
The Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is its class nature: it openly avows that dialectical materialism is in the service of the proletariat. The other is its practicality: it emphasizes the dependence of theory on practice, emphasizes that theory is based on practice and in turn serves practice. The truth of any knowledge or theory is determined not by subjective feelings, but by objective results in social practice. Only social practice can be the criterion of truth. The standpoint of practice is the primary and basic standpoint in the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge.
Leaving aside their genius, the reason why Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could work out their theories was mainly that they personally took part in the practice of the class struggle and the scientific experimentation of their time; lacking this condition, no genius could have succeeded.
All knowledge originates in perception of the objective external world through man's physical sense organs. Anyone who denies such perception, denies direct experience, or denies personal participation in the practice that changes reality is not a materialist. That is why the "know-all" is ridiculous. There is an old Chinese saying, "How can you catch tiger cubs without entering the tiger's lair?" This saying holds true for man's practice and it also holds true for the theory of knowledge. There can be no knowledge apart from practice.”…”

Out of an email from « Richard » (2008):
« Dear Nico,

(…) I agree with you on the fact that the working people should have their own « representation ». A Workers Party we want to make that engagement clear en to propagate it to everybody. That is difficult and so it is creating problems. It is our engagement since the reorientation that the party is going forward with this. Kicking in the back is good, but touching ground is better. So I remembered your engagement in the struggle round Solvay in Montignies in 1991. (…)
Now you want a discussion about your points of view an as long that there is now compromise possible for you, you are staying on criticising (…)
In was your decision to turn your back to your party of earlier days and to show no more engagement for her. My way is not yours…. »

---

^[1] I give here the English translation of the French version of « Ron’s » quote: Out of “Foundations of Leninism” (April 1924) Out: Source: Works Volume 6, pages 71-196. , “II. Method”. Published: Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow: 1953. Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive, May 2008

^[2] V.I. Lenin, "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder (see Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 31, p. 9).

^[3] V.I. Lenin, What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats (see Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 1, pp. 278-79).

^[4] Here « Ron » is giving himself the quote in English.

Chronology articles analysing revisionism

You can follow the chronology of my articles analysing revisionism, which I wrote until now, here in this article.

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (1)

"After socialism is been destroyed in the Soviet Union and the explosion of the country of Lenin, all communists has to understand that revisionism is the most dangerous ideological enemy of Marxism-Leninism. It’s beyond any doubt that revisionism represents the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement[1]”

One has to be careful by concluding that the line of one or another communist party in the world is revisionist or even concluding that the line of one or another communist party is contaminated with a lot of opportunist conceptions. However, it is my opinion that I can prove that there is a development of revisionism in the international communist movement. That development of revisionism is based on and is using certain existing opportunist conceptions (in different communist parties). In some parties the revisionist line has become the main line in that party. At this moment this is the case of the once revolutionary Workers Party of Belgium.
Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (2)
In the first article (you can read it here) I tried to prove how actual revisionism uses existing forms of opportunism as: eclecticism, dogmatism, idealism (ideas are seen as facts) and metaphysics (history repeats itself in the form of analogies). I will go on with an example of revisionism “Contribution to the International Symposium held in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China, 13 - 15 October - Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China", by Peter Franssen, a leading cadre of the Workers Party of Belgium. (You can read this text here)
In an eclecticistic way and with the conception as if there are analogies in history, as if history repeats itself or as if it is a cycle-movement instead of an spirally movement, Peter Franssen "creates” his own reality:
Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (3)
When "Peter Franssen, journalist with the Belgian weekly Solidaire and researcher at the Institute for Marxist Studies, wrote a contribution, 'Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China (Peter Franssen is also member of the leading organs of the Workers Party of Belgium) at "an international symposium was held in the Chinese city of Wuhan, organised by the University of Wuhan, the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau of the CC of the Communist Party of China and the Academy of Social Sciences of China", he has to make the following -although formal - statement:

"The mode of production and the structure of the economy have in the last 25 years taken big steps towards the level where social ownership of all important means of production will once again become necessary."
Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (4)
Peter Franssen "creates" a main contradiction between a - nowhere proved by him, but beyond no doubt - "correct line of the CCP based on correct applying scientific socialism" and "a line of utopian socialism". Martin Hart-Landsberg, Paul Burkett and Barbara Foley are « utopians »(utopian-socialists as Fourier and Owen) when they want to build socialism in the circumstances of China " when capitalist production was as yet so little developed" So " the appropriation by society of all the means of production could become possible, could become a historical necessity, only when the actual conditions for its realisation were there". So "not by the mere willingness to abolish these classes, but by virtue of certain new economic conditions". So for Peter Franssen (and also for Deng Xiaoping as I will prove later) class struggle and mobilisation of the workers and raising their consciousness to “the appropriation by society of all the means of production" is "changing property relations at will."
Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (5)
Let’s start with the first quoted text Lenin, Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.58 (you can read this whole text here) out of which Peter Franssen (I began with a first article - you can read here - an analysis of his text -you can read here) quotes as follows:

« In 1921 Lenin made a self-criticism concerning the period of the three previous years. He wrote: “We expected… to be able to organise the state production and the state distribution of products on communist lines in a small-peasant country directly as ordered by the proletarian state. Experience has proved that we were wrong. ”[2]
I will prove that only by the choice of (the) quote(s) you can make Lenin say contra dictionary things.
Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (6)
Peter Franssen is further quoting Lenin:

"Hence the New Economic Policy with among others this directive of Lenin: “We shall lease the enterprises that are not absolutely essential for us to lessees, including private capitalists and foreign concessionaires.”[3]Lenin added that this period could last a long time: “But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the co-operatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. ”[4]
And naturally, just as nowadays, the critics howled: “The Bolsheviks have reverted to capitalism!” [5]Lenin scolded them: “They are not assisting but hindering economic development; … they are not assisting but hindering the proletarian revolution; … they are pursuing not proletarian, but petty-bourgeois aims.”

Peter Franssen doesn’t say it clearly, he only insinuates the following:
In GENERAL, or ALWAYS, will in a given country, where there is a general consensus on the fact that « capitalism » is not very developed, neither the production-forces (he doesn’t speak of the working class as such, they are only a part of the « production forces ») and where the communist party, present in that country judges, even AFTER the (socialist?, national democratic?) revolution, that the production forces are not «ripe » enough to « replace » capitalist production-relations by « socialist » production relations, there has to be FIRST a development of capitalism (so capitalist-production relations with PRIVATE ownership of means of production and the workforce of the worker as a commodity.

Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (7)
Peter Franssen quoting Lenin:

"Hence the New Economic Policy with among others this directive of Lenin: “We shall lease the enterprises that are not absolutely essential for us to lessees, including private capitalists and foreign concessionaires.”[6]Lenin added that this period could last a long time: “But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the co-operatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. ”[7]

Peter Franssen « uses » here the quote of Lenin as a conclusion of his idealist historical conceptions. He claims that in general and in all historical situation, whatever the level of development of capitalism in the world[8], in a « country where because of the underdevelopment of capitalism in that country, the production forces are not enough developed » to lead a socialist state with a socialist plan economy, there has to be (as Engels and Marx seams to confirm) there has FIRST to be a relatively free development of capitalism with of course « capitalist production relations ».

Read more >>>

About revisionism (1)
When you look close to the conceptions, the way of analyzing, the conclusions that are been made, it becomes very clear that the revisionism that developed in the CCP (or that could “freely” develop after the dead of Mao Zedong in 1976), is identical to the revisionism that developed in the CPUSSR under Chrouststjof, Bresnjev and Gorbatsjov.
You can for example apply the critic (of course in an adapted way, not in an ANALOGUE way) that the CCP wrote in 1964 on the rising revisionism in the CP-USSR “The pseudo-communism of Chroustsjov an the historic lessons for the world”, on the revisionism that has seen the light after the dead of Mao in the CCP and that is made concrete in her economic policy after 1978. And “Perestroika” and “Glasnost” of Gorbatsjov is similar (even in the meaning of the words!) to the “Reform” and “Opening” of Deng Xiaoping.
Read more >>>

About revisionism (2)
In February 2004 Boudewijn Deckers (leading cadre of the WPB) wrote an article in Solidair, the weekly newspaper of the WPB about the development of socialism in China. (You can read it here in French) It was a résumé of his article in Marxist Studies. (You can read the first article here about this topic)
I react, not with an INTERN note as a member, but with an e-mail as an attentive reader of Solidair. I sent this mail to the chief-editor of Solidair (David Pestieau) and to the editorial staff. My intention was to have a discussion IN the columns of Solidair. This would be good and very possible, I thought. My intention was NOT to have a personal polemic OUTSIDE every control of the other readers and the editorial staff….. Boudewijn Deckers, as you will see, thought otherwise….

Read more >>>

About revisionism (3)
I argued that after 1978, or better after the dead of Mao Zedong in 1976, the development of revisionism had a breakthrough in the CCP. (Read more about my arguing starting here)
As revisionism is the bourgeois line INSIDE the communist party, the objective goal of the revisionists is to PROTECT further existence of capitalism and the capitalist class, reject the possibility of socialist revolution and AFTER an eventually revolution to ABOLISH the dictatorship of the proletariat and
STOP all class struggle that is focused on the further development of socialism to communism.
Of course, I have to prove my statements. I will to this later.
But for the good understanding of my analysis, I will give now an example of how revisionism works and how revisionists ABUSE Marxism or the scientific socialism and spread IDEALISM and METAPHISICS under Marxist phraseology.

Read more >>>

About revisionism (4)
In the previous article (you can read here) I let explain by an ideologist of the CCP how the salary-policy-part of the « reform and opening »-policy is ”approved” by Marx in « Critique of the Gotha-program » and by Lenin in « State and Revolution ».
In fact it was a proof of a revisionist type of« Marxism »: cutting a suiting quote or to make a personal interpretation of what they pretend that Marx or Lenin said.
But when we take bigger quotes of Marx and Lenin, we see that Marx and Lenin said totally other things.
I showed this in the previous article with a bigger quote of Marx and with a first quote of Lenin out of his « State and Revolution ».

Read more >>>

About revisionism (5)
I suggested that for to prove the existence of the revisionism in the international communist movement, I would use the concrete example of revisionist development in a communist party I know very well: the Workers Party of Belgium. (Read the beginning of this series of articles here)
And IN the WPB, I would give a concrete example of a revisionist: cadre with perhaps revolutionary conceptions in the past, but who can now be seen as a to bourgeois degenerated element: Boudewijn Deckers (you can read here more about Boudewijn and his conceptions)
The struggle against revisionism INSIDE the communist movement is in fact a form of class struggle. It is the essence of what is called « the struggle between two lines »: the proletarian revolutionary line against the bourgeois reactionary line (of protecting as much as possible the further existence of capitalism)
Before I go further with my analysis of the development of revisionism in the perhaps rather unknown (and most of all of his INTERN contradictions) little communist party of a little country; I will analyze the development of revisionism in the CCP with the concrete example of Deng Xiaoping.
So every-one can better judge if my analysis is correct or not, because everyone can find al information and historical facts about the CCP and Deng Xiaoping …
Read more >>>

About revisionism 6
In this article I will come back (read here the previous article) on conceptions that Khrushchev defended, and where judged as revisionism in the analyses of the CCP (in the sixties), texts that were edited by Deng Xiaoping who had the responsibility from the CCP to lead de discussions with the CP-USSR. Because the conceptions of Deng in 1978 were similar with those of Khrushchev, he has to erase a whole historical period in de development of the political line in the CCP. For me this is an example of historical idealism of a conscious revisionist.
You can read here the « The letter of the Central Committee of the CP-USSR to the Central Committee of the CPC » of 30 march 1963.
Read more >>>

About revisionism (7)
The political line of the CPC, after the dead of Mao Zedong in 1976, was more and more based on revisionism. This revisionist politic line, perhaps in the beginning combated by people like for example Hua Guofeng (and who became more isolated in the party) is in fact since 1978, the leading political line of the CPC. He is developed by Deng Xiaoping since 1978.
I will prove this in the coming articles using texts of Deng Xiaoping himself.
People or organisations, who now defend socialism in China (against the political and ideological attacks out of the imperialist world) but who are not making an analysis from and who are not fighting (political and ideological) against the revisionism in the CPC, are, as I see it, no Marxists, communists or revolutionaries (nor as individual nor as organisation).
Individuals or organisation like that, are by THEMSELVES contaminated by revisionism.
This MUST have repercussions on their OWN political, ideological and organisational work in their OWN region, where someday they will have to mobilise and lead the working masses to revolution.

Read more >>>

[1] "About certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism", Ludo Martens in Marxistische Studies no 29, march 1996, (see www.marx.be), a discussion report on the International Seminar in Janashakti, India organised by the PCI(ML)
[2] Lenin, Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.58
[3] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.28
[4] Lenin, On Co-operation, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.470.
[5] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, pp.21 and 24
[6] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.28
[7] Lenin, On Co-operation, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.470.
[8] The « variation » is, that « the specific situation of the Chinese revolution » needs this, as leaders of the CCP after 1978 are saying and writing.

About revisionism (7)

The political line of the CPC, after the dead of Mao Zedong in 1976, was more and more based on revisionism. This revisionist politic line, perhaps in the beginning combated by people like for example Hua Guofeng (and who became more isolated in the party) is in fact since 1978, the leading political line of the CPC. He is developed by Deng Xiaoping since 1978.
I will prove this in the coming articles using texts of Deng Xiaoping himself.
People or organisations, who now defend socialism in China (against the political and ideological attacks out of the imperialist world) but who are not making an analysis from and who are not fighting (political and ideological) against the revisionism in the CPC, are, as I see it, no Marxists, communists or revolutionaries (nor as individual nor as organisation).
Individuals or organisation like that, are by THEMSELVES contaminated by revisionism.
This MUST have repercussions on their OWN political, ideological and organisational work in their OWN region, where someday they will have to mobilise and lead the working masses to revolution.
In a series of articles on this web log (mostly in Dutch- but once I will translate all this) I already have illustrated this analysing the evolutions in the Workers Party of Belgium, with an analysis of conceptions by different cadres of the WPB as example.
Sympathisers with the socialist peoples republic of China can perhaps give positive facts that prove that China is STILL socialist, which is the reason that China deserves solidarity but also lie under the attack of pro-capitalist forces in the world. They try to give OTHER information. This is a good and necessary thing to do.
But I am fighting those who defend the authentically Marxist character of the economical policy actual in China and are claiming that socialism has been strengthened since 1978. Particularly when they are cadre in a, or representing a communist organisation. They are, I think; from the same calibre as Kautsky opposed by Lenin and named by him as « renegade ».
I will prove all this, being in fact the main goal of my analysis of the actual revisionism.
I want to prove now (being the next step in my analysis from the ACTUAL revisionism in the international communist movement) that the line of the CPC since 1978 is the OPPOSITE of the line of that same CPC before the dead of Mao Zedong.
All what the CPC was fighting against (with indeed a big contribution of Mao Zedong but ALSO what concerned the conceptions of Deng Xiaoping which he defended AT THAT TIME) is after 1978 becoming a part of the political line of the CPC!
Summarizing (and that is indeed simplifying) I think that you can say that de line of the CPC since 1978 is going back to the revisionist line that Liu Chaochi (in the years ‘50s) defended, in OPPOSITION with the line of Mao Zedong. The official line of the CPC you can see it as the result of the struggle between two lines (the revolutionary line and the bourgeois/revisionist line), and therefore reflects a temporary outcome of that struggle.

Deng Xiaoping:

« A question which now confronts you is how the Anshan Iron and Steel Company should be updated. Whenever foreign technology is introduced, we should first master it and then upgrade or renovate it. You have many tasks ahead of you at this point, such as the training of workers and cadres. If you fail to do so, then they will not be capable of acquiring advanced foreign technology. We had a serious lesson along these lines. It is important for us to seize the hour, because our country is going to introduce about 1,000 projects from other countries. All our technologies and equipment as well as supporting facilities should be modern and up to the highest standards of the 1970s. The world is advancing. If we do not develop our technology, we cannot catch up with the developed countries, let alone surpass them, and we shall be trailing behind at a snail's pace. We should take the world's advanced scientific and technological achievements as starting points for our country's development. Such a lofty aspiration should be ours.
It is a good idea for the Anshan Iron and Steel Company to cut down the number of its staff members and departments. As for those units to be dissociated from the company, it is important that it should not have too many administrators or staff personnel. Large numbers of people in a modern and automated enterprise lead only to poor management. A steel enterprise with an annual output of six million tons in Japan has only 600 administrators, whereas the Anshan Iron and Steel Company with the same annual output has 23,000 managerial personnel. This is surely unreasonable. When advanced technology and equipment are imported, we must run enterprises with advanced management and operation techniques and set attainable quotas. In other words, we should manage the economy in accordance with the laws governing economic development. In a word, we need a revolution instead of just reforming the economy.
If we want to update enterprises so that their technology and management can reach the required level, we must have qualified managerial staff and workers. After technological upgrading, large numbers of workers with relatively high educational and technological levels should appear, otherwise new technologies and equipment cannot be used. All cadres and workers should be evaluated. Those who are unqualified should be designated as supernumerary personnel. Their livelihood should be guaranteed, but they cannot enjoy the same treatment as assigned personnel. They should be organized to study and receive training so as to become qualified for new jobs. We should resolve to accomplish this task.
Qualified managerial staff and workers should enjoy better treatment, so that the principle of distribution according to work can be truly carried out.^[1] »

« We should take the world's advanced scientific and technological achievements as starting points for our country's development. »
« When advanced technology and equipment are imported, we must run enterprises with advanced management and operation techniques and set attainable quotas. In other words, we should manage the economy in accordance with the laws governing economic development. »
« Large numbers of workers with relatively high educational and technological levels should appear…Those who are unqualified should be designated as supernumerary personnel. Their livelihood should be guaranteed, but they cannot enjoy the same treatment as assigned personnel. They should be organized to study and receive training so as to become qualified for new jobs. … Qualified managerial staff and workers should enjoy better treatment, so that the principle of distribution according to work can be truly carried out. »
Here Deng Xiaoping is very clear in what he means by « development of productive forces ». Sometimes Marx spoke very general about « productive forces » (and of course Deng Xiaoping, and other revisionists will use in an eclecticist way these quotes) But MOSTLY Marx talked about the most important productive force, « the working class » and about her « development » and « ripening ». He was talking about development of political and ideological consciousness and development of her organisational strength in function of that consciousness. And THAT is developing with the gaining of understanding the functioning and development of capitalism, by experiences in class struggle, by the discussion (or political and ideological struggle) In the working class itself, and gaining knowledge about scientific socialism (often through intellectuals who, mostly coming out of the bourgeoisie, definitively chose to become part of the working class and want to be a part of her revolutionary mission)
Deng speaks about technology and its implementation as if it has no class character as if they are « neutral ». In his eyes the « avant-garde » of the working class are those who have knowledge about « modern technology » and about « modern management techniques ». Here we are far away from one of the achievements of the Cultural Revolution: being RED and EXPERT.
It will be easier for people, once part of the bourgeoisie and having the possibilities to study, having foreign contacts, to fulfil at Deng’s criteria, than a peasant, being part over generations of the poor peasantry but enthusiast vanguard of the collectivisation movement in agriculture and now deciding becoming steel-worker
The most important reason for Deng Xiaoping of introducing the most advanced technologies is « to prove the superiority of socialism by passing the developed countries »: so being capable to COMPETE (and this means capitalist competition) with the bigger IMPERIALIST countries.

Deng Xiaoping:

«For a certain period of time, learning advanced science and technology from the developed countries was criticized as "blindly worshiping foreign things". We have come to understand how stupid this argument is. Therefore, we have sent many people abroad to familiarize themselves with the outside world. China cannot develop by closing its door, sticking to the beaten track and being self-complacent.
Due to the interference of Lin Biao and the Gang of Four, China's development was held up for ten years. In the early 1960s, we were behind the developed countries in science and technology, but the gap was not so wide. However, over the past dozen years, the gap has widened because the world has been developing with tremendous speed. Compared with developed countries, China's economy has fallen behind at least ten years, perhaps 20, 30, or even 50 years in some areas. What will the world be like in 22 years at the end of the century? What will those developed countries, including your country, be like after 22 years of further development based on the development of the 1970s? It will be quite difficult for us to realize the four modernizations^[2] so that we can reach your current level of development by the end of this century, let alone catch up with your country at that time. Therefore, to achieve the four modernizations, we must be adept at learning from other countries and we must obtain a great deal of foreign assistance. As a starting point in our development, we should introduce advanced technology and equipment from the rest of the world.
You ask us whether it runs counter to our past traditions to implement the policy of opening to the outside world. Our approach is to define new policies according to new circumstances, while retaining our best traditions. We must stick to that which has proven to be effective, and in particular, to our basic systems, that is, the socialist system and socialist public ownership, and we must never waver in doing so. We shall not allow a new bourgeoisie to come into being. We will introduce advanced technology for the purpose of expanding our productive forces and improving the people's living standards. This will benefit our socialist country and our socialist system. It is even closer to following our socialist system to find ways to achieve greater, better, faster, and more economical results in development than not to do so. ^[3]»

Here Deng Xiaoping creates his own « history » were he can base on his revisionist analyse and can make the conclusions he WANT to make: development of COMMODITY-production (that finds its highest possible form in …. capitalism), winning the competition (and that can be no other than CAPITALIST competition) with the bigger IMPERIALIST countries, therefore generate surplus value through capitalist exploitation, and through a very high « economic growth » (so growth of Gross Domestic Product being the produced products at their sell-value so the pile of COMMODITIES) allow higher incomes, creating so a domestic market and a « harmonious » and « quiet » political climate. You can compare this with creation of the post war « welfare-states » like Germany or France until about 1980. Of course China has not the neo-colonial exploitation relation that the western imperialist countries have. But with his big surface and big population China creates his own « exploitation relation »; namely the domestic migrants

Deng Xiaoping creates a formulation of « a bad situation » or a « bad development»:

« For a certain period of time, learning advanced science and technology from the developed countries was criticized as "blindly worshiping foreign things". …China's development was held up for ten years. In the early 1960s, we were behind the developed countries in science and technology, … China's economy has fallen behind at least ten years, perhaps 20, 30, or even 50 years in some areas. »
And the responsibility of that « bad situation » or « bad development » lies by « Lin Biao and the Gang of Four »

The Chinese revolution, the struggle not to let stagnate him on the level of the National Democratic Revolution by mobilising the workers in alliance with the peasants, to raise their consciousness (by political formation and discussion and by experiences based on the practice of class struggle), to go to socialism and to fight against revisionism….. It is all erased by Deng Xiaoping.
What is left only? « For a certain period of time, learning advanced science and technology from the developed countries was criticized as "blindly worshiping foreign things". We have come to understand how stupid this argument is. Therefore, we have sent many people abroad to familiarize themselves with the outside world. China cannot develop by closing its door, sticking to the beaten track and being self-complacent. »
For Deng Xiaoping it was important to pull a line under EVERYTHING of the past that could stop his policy of « reform and opening ». At this moment Deng Xiaoping could only lay the blame on « Lin Biao and the Gang of Four ». Those five former cadres in the CPC are NOT judged by Deng Xiaoping on their possible mistakes in strengthening socialism, powerful attitude against imperialism, struggle against revisionism, raising a higher political and ideological consciousness by the working masses and their better and more correct way of developing class struggle and therefore a stronger proletarian dictatorship and the transformation of capitalist commodity- production and commodity economy in production in function of needs in a socialist plan economy.

The group round Lin Biao wanted, based on « left » sounding slogans (to use the revolutionary energy present by the working people), to bring an elite to power. Being not a strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship it could only be finally (in spite of all « left » phraseology)…. The bourgeois dictatorship (in the form of a militaristic fascist-like regime)
What is concerning the so-called « Gang of Four », it is more complicated. But one can say that Deng Xiaoping ties all his negative judgements on all that ever opposed the « consolidation of the national democratic revolution » and on all what was mobilising to go from the national democratic revolution further into the socialist revolution.
At THAT moment (in 1978, only two years after the dead of Mao Zedong) he could not attack all essential achievements of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, because he has to erase first the collective historic memory of the party members and « replace » it by his idealist and metaphysical conceptions. Therefore he is here just « attacking » the indeed opportunist and revisionist deviations that came forward in the Cultural Revolution.
When Deng Xiaoping is here comparing China’s « backwardness » with the situation in the « developed » (so BIG IMPERIALIST) countries, he is fixed on a strong economic growth that make it possible to create a reasonable middleclass that will be the « patriotic » supporter of a policy that can only end in ….. a bourgeois dictatorship. That middleclass must support a policy that deteriorate the proletarian dictatorship, that means the (re)- introducing of « the workforce of the workers as a commodity », the strengthening of COMMODITY-production (where of the capitalist way of production is the HIGHEST form) working against the forming of socialist plan economy based on a production in function of needs.
Later we will see that Deng Xiaoping classifies China being a part of the Third World. Here he is comparing China with developed imperialist countries, putting the goal that China, by means of CAPITALIST competition, comes on the level of the biggest imperialist countries.
« Compared with developed countries, China's economy has fallen behind » With this IDEA (= idealism, NOT materialism) Deng Xiaoping want to prove that socialist plan economy and a socialisation movement is NOT superior to COMMODITY-production-economy (of which capitalism is the highest possible form).
Otherwise Deng Xiaoping had compared China with THIRD WORLD countries that are (still) capitalist. (Like for example India or Brazil - Is it not Deng Xiaoping himself that classifies China in the third world countries??) Because than would be obvious that China during the Great Leap Forward, was SUPERIOR to for example India during the « Green Revolution » at that same moment, or was SUPERIOR to the by the USA supported neo colonial policy in Brazil in THE SAME PERIOD meaning for the biggest part of the Brazilian people hunger, poverty, death squadrons and repression.

Do you think this a little extreme (you can always react - I will answer) that I get all this out of a quote out of a speech that Deng Xiaoping gave in 1978 to western journalists?
Well, in a next article I will analyse bigger parts out of a speech that Deng Xiaoping hold in 1978 on a national congress of Chinese unions. (I interupted the analyse of the texts of Deng Xiaoping to continue analysing revisionism out of another aspect of it, read this next article +explanation about this interuption)

---

^[1] UPDATE ENTERPRISES WITH ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGERIAL EXPERTISE September 18, 1978, Excerpt from remarks made when hearing a report from the leading comrades of the Anshan Municipal Party Committee.

^[2] These refer to the modernization of China's industry, agriculture, national defence and science and technology.

^[3] CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF OPENING TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD AND LEARN ADVANCED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FROM OTHER COUNTRIES October 10, 1978, Excerpt from a talk with a press delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany.

About revisionism 6

In this article I will come back (read here the previous article) on conceptions that Khrushchev defended, and where judged as revisionism in the analyses of the CCP (in the sixties), texts that were edited by Deng Xiaoping who had the responsibility from the CCP to lead de discussions with the CP-USSR. Because the conceptions of Deng in 1978 were similar with those of Khrushchev, he has to erase a whole historical period in de development of the political line in the CCP. For me this is an example of historical idealism of a conscious revisionist.
You can read here the « The letter of the Central Committee of the CP-USSR to the Central Committee of the CPC » of 30 march 1963.

In this letter is said:

« The formation of the world socialist system is a historic achievement of the international working class and of all the working people. This achievement is the incarnation of mankind’s dreams of a new society. The growth of production and the vast achievements of science and engineering in the socialist countries have helped to provide the socialist community with an economic and military might that reliably defends the gains of socialism and also serves as a mighty mainstay of peace and security for the peoples of the world. ^[1]»

Anti-imperialist struggle, the need of socialist revolution, the proletarian dictatorship needed in the first stage of communism (that is in socialism), the continuing of class struggle under socialism, the need of a vanguard party of the proletariat, it is all gone by Khrushchev. We will see how it will all disappear by Deng Xiaoping. When capitalist production relations (commodity-production under capitalist exploitation to realize surplus value) are the best way to realize economic growth (formulated in piling of commodities produced and sold for their values, than class struggle and dictatorship are obstacles. The best way to mislead the working class and the members of the communist party is to develop a « Marxist » theory of disappearing classes and the existing of socialism and the socialist state « for the whole people ». And the vanguard party not of the proletariat only but of « the whole people » included the new managers that are realizing that economic growth based on capitalist production relations and who are allowed to have at least a part of de surplus value extracted of the labor of the workers.
Similar arguments are put forward by Deng Xiaoping for the arguing that China has first of all to increase production and to develop the production forces.

Further:

« The socialist system is exerting an ever-growing influence on the course of world development. The entire world revolutionary process is today developing under the direct influence of the great example provided by the new life in the countries of socialism. The more successfully the ideas of communism make their way to the minds and hearts of the general masses, the greater and more significant are our achievements in the building of socialism and communism. It is, therefore, clear that he who wants to bring closer the victory of socialism throughout the entire world should, in the first place, show concern for strengthening the great socialist community and its economic might, should seek to raise the standard of living of its peoples, develop science, engineering and culture, consolidate its unity and solidarity and the growth of its international authority. The Statement of the Moscow Meeting places the responsibility to the international working-class movement for the successful building of socialism and communism on the Marxist-Leninist Parties and the peoples of the socialist countries.
Tirelessly strengthening the world socialist system, the fraternal Parties and peoples of our countries make their contribution to the great cause of the struggle of the international working class, of all the working people, of the entire liberation movement for solving the basic problems of the day in the interests of peace, democracy and socialism. ^[2]»

In fact he defend here that a strong economic growth is the internationalist task of the existing socialist country that the USSR is. The development of the production forces is the most important issue. So there fore class struggle, anti imperialist struggle are subjugated at the strong economic growth. An economic strong socialist country is the best (in fact the only possible) contribution to the world revolution.
This could be a arguing of Deng Xiaoping himself…. as I will prove later.

Further:

« Availing themselves of the conditions of peaceful coexistence, the socialist countries are scoring more and more victories in the economic competition with capitalism. Our adversaries realize that it is difficult for them to count on winning the competition against us. They are unable to keep up with the rapid economic advance of the socialist countries; they are powerless in the face of the appeal that the example of the socialist countries makes to the peoples under capitalism’s yoke.
As the economy of the socialist commonwealth advances, the advantages and superiority of socialism, and the greater opportunities of the working people to obtain material and spiritual riches, as compared to capitalism, will display themselves more and more vividly. The rising standards of living the socialist countries are a great magnet for the working class of all the capitalist countries. The achievements of the socialist commonwealth will constitute a kind of catalyst, a revolutionizing factor in broadening the class struggle in the capitalist countries and enabling the working class to triumph over capitalism.
The peoples embarking on socialism inherit from the past economies and cultures at different levels. Regardless of this, however, socialism awakens mighty productive forces — as exemplified by the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies.
The Soviet Union has already outpaced the leading capitalist countries of Europe in economic development and has taken second place in the world; the time is not far off when it will take first place in the world. The other socialist countries have likewise gained great successes. The socialist system is so progressive by nature that it enables the peoples to swiftly eliminate their backwardness, to catch up with the more highly-developed countries, and, marching in one rank with them, to fight for the building of communism.
All this inspires the peoples, giving them the conviction that they can embark upon the road of socialism and score achievements, regardless of their present level of historical development. The advance of the peoples to a new life is facilitated by their opportunity to select the best from the world’s experience in building socialism, taking into account both the merits and the shortcomings in the practices of socialist construction.
The faster the productive forces of the socialist countries develop, the higher their economic potential will rise, and the stronger the influence of the socialist community will become on the rate and trend of the whole of historical development in the interests of peace and of the complete triumph of socialism.^[3] »

So is said that the goal is, the only possible internationalist contribution is, the proof of the superiority of socialism is, to realize a bigger economic growth. (Formulated in terms of GDP this means in fact a bigger growth of commodity production) than equivalent imperialist powers. There fore the socialist power has to compete economically with equivalent imperialist powers. And therefore there has to be peaceful coexistence by all means.
So the most important force for the socialism becoming stronger is « the development of the productive forces ». It could be Deng Xiaoping speaking!
Deng Xiaoping was the cadre of the CPC to lead the discussion with the CPUSSR. So he had at least to defend the CPC point of view against the revisionist line of the CPUSSR.

You can read here the first answer of the CPC on the letter of de CPUSSR of 30 March 1963
As answer AGAINST the points of view of Khrushchev here above (and that are similar to that of Deng Xiaoping) the CPC (and also Deng Xiaoping at that moment) said[4]:

« Lenin’s principle of peaceful coexistence is very clear and readily comprehensible by ordinary people. Peaceful coexistence designates a relationship between countries with different social systems, and must not be interpreted as one pleases.
It should never be extended to apply to the relations between oppressed and oppressor nations, between oppressed and oppressor countries or between oppressed and oppressor classes, and never be described as the main content of the transition from capitalism to socialism, still less should it be asserted that peaceful coexistence is mankind’s road to socialism. The reason is that it is one thing to practice peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems.
It is absolutely impermissible and impossible for countries practicing peaceful coexistence to touch even a hair of each other’s social system. The class struggle, the struggle for national liberation and the transition from capitalism to socialism in various countries are quite another thing. They are all bitter, life-and-death revolutionary struggles which aim at changing the social system. Peaceful coexistence cannot replace the revolutionary struggles of the people. The transition from capitalism to socialism in any country can only be brought about through the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in that country.
In the application of the policy of peaceful coexistence, struggles between the socialist and imperialist countries are unavoidable in the political, economic and ideological spheres, and it is absolutely impossible to have “all-round co-operation”.
It is necessary for the socialist countries to engage in negotiations of one kind or another with the imperialist countries.
It is possible to reach certain agreements through negotiation by relying on the correct policies of the socialist countries and on the pressure of the people of all countries. But necessary compromises between the socialist countries and the imperialist countries do not require the oppressed peoples and nations to follow suit and compromise with imperialism and its lackeys. No one should ever demand in the name of peaceful coexistence that the oppressed peoples and nations should give up their revolutionary struggles.
The application of the policy of peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries is advantageous for achieving a peaceful international environment for socialist construction, for exposing the imperialist policies of aggression and war and for isolating the imperialist forces of aggression and war. But if the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries is confined to peaceful coexistence, then it is impossible to handle correctly either the relations between socialist countries or those between the socialist countries and the oppressed peoples and nations. Therefore it is wrong to make peaceful coexistence the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries.
In our view, the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries should have the following content: to develop relations of friendship, mutual assistance and cooperation among the countries in the socialist camp in accordance with the principle of proletarian internationalism; to strive for peaceful coexistence on the basis of the Five Principles with countries having different social systems and oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war; and, to support and assist the revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed peoples and nations.
These three aspects are interrelated and indivisible, and not a single one can be omitted.[5] »

To develop his version of « peaceful coexistence » (I will give his arguments in his texts later) Deng Xiaoping has to erase the points of view that the CPC defended in the sixties (and that Deng himself has to defend, as the responsible cadre of the CPC to lead the discussion with the CP-USSR) out of the historic collective memory of the CPC.
Because in 1963 the CPC (and Deng Xiaoping also!) said further:

« For a very long historical period after the proletariat takes power, class struggle continues as an objective law independent of man’s will, differing only in form from what it was before the taking of power.
After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a number of times that:
a. The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand and one ways to recover the “paradise” they have been deprived of.
b. New elements of capitalism are constantly and spontaneously generated in the petty-bourgeois atmosphere.
c. Political degenerates and new bourgeois elements may emerge in the ranks of the working class and among government functionaries as a result of bourgeois influence and the pervasive, corrupting atmosphere of the petty bourgeoisie.
d. The external conditions for the continuance of class struggle within a socialist country are encirclement by international capitalism, the imperialists’ threat of armed intervention and their subversive activities to accomplish peaceful disintegration.
Life has confirmed these conclusions of Lenin’s.
For decades or even longer periods after socialist industrialization and agricultural collectivization, it will be impossible to say that any socialist country will be free from those elements which Lenin repeatedly denounced, such as bourgeois hangers-on, parasites, speculators, swindlers, idlers, hooligans and embezzlers of state funds; or to say that a socialist country will no longer need to perform or be able to relinquish the task laid down by Lenin of conquering “this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism”.
In a socialist country, it takes a very long historical period gradually to settle the question of who will win — socialism or capitalism. The struggle between the road of socialism and the road of capitalism runs through this whole historical period. This struggle rises and falls in a wave-like manner, at times becoming very fierce, and the forms of the struggle are many and varied.
The 1957 Declaration rightly states that “the conquest of power by the working class is only the beginning of the revolution, not its conclusion”.
To deny the existence of class struggle in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the necessity of thoroughly completing the socialist revolution on the economic, political and ideological fronts is wrong, does not correspond to objective reality and violates Marxism-Leninism. »

To defend the Marxist base of his economic policy of « reform and opening » he has to make of the point of view here above of the CPC in answer to the revisionist line Khrushchev (and the point of view that he has defended at that time) a « left opportunist line » So he is historical idealist in stead of historical materialist..
Further the CPC(and Deng) in 1963:

« What will happen if it is announced, halfway through, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary?
Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of Marx and Lenin on the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat?
Does this not license the development of “this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism”?
In other words, this would lead to extremely grave consequences and make any transition to communism out of the question.
Can there be a “state of the whole people”? Is it possible to replace the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by a “state of the whole people”?
This is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular country but a fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism.
In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class state. So long as the state remains a state, it must bear a class character; so long as the state exists, it cannot be a state of the “whole people”. As soon as society becomes classless, there will no longer be a state.
Then what sort of thing would a “state of the whole people” be?
Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism can understand that the so-called “state of the whole people” is nothing new. Representative bourgeois figures have always called the bourgeois state a “state of all the people”, or a “state in which power belongs to all the people”.^[6]

To defend the development of capitalism and the weakening of the proletarian dictatorship, Deng has to defend that « in fact there is no more a real capitalist CLASS" in China, because seen formally there is quasi -none existing no more private ownership of means of production. So capitalists, that accept the (actual) program and statutes of the communist party, can become member (the communist party as vanguard of the proletariat has no real meaning when the capitalist class no longer exists). So the point of view, that was that of the CPC itself (and defended by Deng himself can so be catalogued as « left opportunism ».

This counts also for the point of view of the CPC of 1963 (and that of Deng himself) that is now following:

« Leninism holds that the proletarian party must exist together with the dictatorship of the proletariat in socialist countries. The party of the proletariat is indispensable for the entire historical period of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The reason is that the dictatorship of the proletariat has to struggle against the enemies of the proletariat and of the people, remould the peasants and other small producers, constantly consolidate the proletarian ranks, build socialism and effects the transition to communism; none of these things can be done without the leadership of the party of the proletariat.
Can there be a “party of the entire people”? Is it possible to replace the party which is the vanguard of the proletariat by a “party of the entire people”?
This, too, is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular Party, but a fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism.
In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class political party. All political parties have a class character. Party spirit is the concentrated expression of class character.
The party of the proletariat is the only party able to represent the interests of the whole people. It can do so precisely because it represents the interests of the proletariat, whose ideas and will it concentrates. It can lead the whole people because the proletariat can finally emancipate itself only with the emancipation of all mankind, because the very nature of the proletariat enables its party to approach problems in terms of its present and future interests, because the party is boundlessly loyal to the people and has the spirit of self-sacrifice; hence its democratic centralism and iron discipline.
Without such a party, it is impossible to maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat and to represent the interests of the whole people.
What will happen if it is announced halfway before entering the higher stage of communist society that the party of the proletariat has become a “party of the entire people” and if its proletarian class character is repudiated?
Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of Marx and Lenin on the party of the proletariat? Does this not disarm the proletariat and all the working people, organizationally and ideologically, and is it not tantamount to helping restore capitalism? Is it not “going south by driving the chariot north” to talk about any transition to communist society in such circumstances?[7] »

In next articles (beginning here with this article) I will show how the formulation of the conceptions of Deng Xiaoping develops in time. I will use the chronology of texts out of Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping. You will see for example how « working class », « class struggle », « proletarian dictatorship » is gradually disappearing from 1978 to the eighties.

---

^[1] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC » (March 30, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

^[2] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC » (March 30, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

^[3] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC » (March 30, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

[4] The whole text of “The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 » (June 14, 1963) you can read here.

[5] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT »,“A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT”: “The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963”(June 14, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006.

^[6] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT- The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 » (June 14, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

[7] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT- The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 » (June 14, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006